- (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 15/10/2010 of District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Baster, at Jagdalapur (C. G) (hereinafter called "District Forum" for short), in Complaint Case No. 09/2010, whereby the complaint of the appellant herein, in respect of claim for compensation on account of damage to the insured vehicle No. C. G. 17/T -0254 in a road accident, has been dismissed on the ground that the complainant, does not come in the category of "consumer? as the vehicle in question was already requisitioned during the subsistence of the insurance to the Superintendent of Police, Bijapur (C. G).
(2.) THE facts of the case are that vehicle No. C. G. 17/T -0254, is of the registered ownership of the complainant/appellant, which was insured by the respondent/Insurance Company as a Passenger Carrying Vehicle under the insurance policy given for that purpose. Under the insurance policy, the own damage cover regarding the vehicle, was also provided. The case of the complainant was that vehicle in question suffered road accident on 16/12/2008 when Police force was being carried by it. Prior to it, that vehicle was requisitioned by the Reserved Inspector (Police Department), Bijapur (C. G) on 31/07/2008 for the purpose of Police use. The incident was reported to the Police Station, Kodenar, District Baster (C. G) and a case u/s 279 and 337 of the Indian Penal Code was registered, then the vehicle was inspected by the Surveyor appointed by the Insurance Company, who assessed the loss of Rs. 1,74,900/ -. The complainant appellant preferred a claim for that amount before the Insurance Company, but the Insurance Company repudiated the claim on the ground that at the relevant time, the insured was not having any permit as per terms of the insurance policy and therefore, the claim is not payable. Then the complainant filed complaint before the District Forum. The case of the complainant before the District Forum was that as the vehicle in question, was being used for Police, so under Section 66(3) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no permit was necessary and the Insurance Company, could have at least settled her claim on non -standard basis.
(3.) THE respondent/Insurance Company, in reply of the complaint averred that no amount was payable to the complainant by the Insurance Company, because the vehicle in question, was registered as a Taxi, but the insured has not obtained any permit for plying that vehicle as Taxi and, thus, violated the provisions of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 as well as terms of the insurance policy. It has also been averred by the Insurance Company that at the relevant time, the vehicle was requisitioned by the Reserved Inspector (Police Department), Bijapur (C. G) and, therefore, only Police Department, as well as Government of Chhattisgarh, are responsible to compensate the complainant, in respect of damages occurred to the vehicle in question. On the basis of these defences, the liability was denied by the Insurance Company. Learned District Forum, after having considered the rival contentions raised before it by both parties and on the basis of a reported judgment of Hon?ble Supreme Court in case of National Insurance Company Limited. Vs. Deepa Devi and Others, 2008 AIR(SC) 735, held that the Insurance Company, is not liable to pay any compensation to the complainant. Feeling aggrieved by this order, this appeal has been filed by the complainant/appellant.;